Flat Lab

Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées
2014-2015
Projet de Fin d’Etudes

Département Génie Civil et Construction
Konstantinos LYTOS
Conseiller scientifique : Eddie Jump
Directeur de projet : Gilles Forêt
Double diplôme
Design of flat slabs of Saint Cross College in Oxford

Includes research on the punching shear capacity of flat slabs
Projet réalisé au sein de Pell Frischmann
5 Manchester Square, London, W1U 3PD, United Kingdom
02/03/15 – 30/06/15
Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées – Projet de fin d’Etudes
Remerciements
Je tiens à remercier M. Gilles Forêt, M. Eddie Jump et M. Alasdair Sinclair pour leur
disponibilité et leur souci de l’aboutissement de mon travail. Aucun mot ne suffirait pour
exprimer ma gratitude pour tout le soutien moral et technique dont ils m’ont humblement
entouré.
Je remercie également M. Ashu Prabhu, M. Tom Robertshaw et Mlle Giulia Tomasello de

m’avoir offert cette opportunité d’intégrer l’équipe Pell Frischmann.
Aussi, je réserve un remerciement spécial à mes collègues de bureau pour la gentillesse et la

patience qu’ils ont manifestées à mon égard durant ces quatre mois.
Pour finir, je voudrais remercier ma famille pour tout le soutien moral et physique et dédier
mon diplôme d'ingénieur à elle.
LYTOS Konstantinos – Département Génie Civil et Construction 2

Résumé
Le projet de fin d’études concerne le calcul détaillé du ferraillage des dalles en béton armé du
bâtiment «Saint Cross College» qui est actuellement conçu par Pell Frischmann. Les dalles
sont généralement plates et directement soutenues par des poteaux. Le bâtiment est d'abord
modélisé en éléments finis sur le logiciel Scia Engineer 2014. Cette analyse est ensuite
utilisée pour calculer le ferraillage des dalles. Un domaine qui est traditionnellement d'une
attention particulière est l'intersection entre les poteaux et une dalle plate, car la zone
d'interface est généralement soumise à des contraintes élevées sur une petite section /
périmètre. Cela peut conduire à une rupture par poinçonnement, qui est de nature fragile, sans
avertissement et presque immédiate. Dans ce rapport, les différentes méthodes pour
augmenter la capacité des dalles contre le poinçonnement sont évaluées et comparées. Enfin,
une méthode innovante qui concerne l'utilisation des FRP (Fiber-reinforced polymers) collés
comme matériau de renforcement est présentée.
Mots-clés : béton armé, ferraillage des dalles, poinçonnement, éléments finis, FRP collés

Abstract
The thesis concerns the detailed calculation of the slab reinforcement of the building «Saint
Cross College» which is currently being designed by Pell Frischmann. The slabs are generally
flat and directly supported on columns. The building is firstly modelled in the FE software
Scia Engineer 2014.The output of the analysis is then used for calculating the required
reinforcement of the slabs. One area that is traditionally of particular attention is the
intersection between columns and a flat slab, as the interface area is usually subject to high
stresses on a small section/perimeter. This can lead to a punching shear failure, which is of
brittle nature, without warnings and almost immediate. In this thesis, the different methods to
increase the punching shear capacity of RC flat slabs are evaluated and compared. Finally, an
innovative method which concerns the use of fiber-reinforced polymers as a strengthening
material is presented.
Keywords: reinforced concrete, flat slabs, punching shear, fiber-reinforced polymers, finite
elements

Table of contents
Contents
Remerciements ........................................................................................................................... 2
Résumé ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Table of contents ........................................................................................................................ 5
Table of figures .......................................................................................................................... 8
List of tables ............................................................................................................................. 11
Presentation of Pell Frischmann ............................................................................................... 12
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 13
1.1. Flat slabs ................................................................................................................... 13
1.2. Outline of thesis ....................................................................................................... 16
2. Literature review .............................................................................................................. 17
2.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 17
2.2. Punching Shear Failure ................................................................................................. 18
2.2.1. Punching Shear in General ..................................................................................... 18
2.2.2. Conventional types of punching shear reinforcement ............................................ 19
2.3. Analytical punching shear failure model in Eurocode 2 ............................................... 22
2.3.1. Punching shear verification model ......................................................................... 22
2.3.2. Punching shear calculation ..................................................................................... 24
2.3.3. Detailing requirements for punching shear reinforcement ..................................... 29
2.4. Use of externally bonded FRP sheets ............................................................................ 31
2.4.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 31
2.4.2. Analytical model .................................................................................................... 33
2.5. Summary ....................................................................................................................... 39
3. Reinforcement of concrete elements of Saint Cross College in Oxford .......................... 40
3.1. The project................................................................................................................ 40
3.2. Structural system and aim of calculations ................................................................ 42
3.3. Scia model ................................................................................................................ 43
3.3.1. Elements and Mesh .......................................................................................... 44

3.3.2. Restraints and Supports .................................................................................... 46
3.3.3. Loads on the building ....................................................................................... 46
3.4. Reinforcement of slabs ............................................................................................. 47
3.4.1. Finite Element output ....................................................................................... 48
3.4.2. Longitudinal reinforcement of flat slabs .......................................................... 51
3.4.3. Overall reinforcement quantities ...................................................................... 55
3.4.4. Punching shear calculations ............................................................................. 57
3.4.5. Beam subjected to torsion ................................................................................ 57
3.5. Summary .................................................................................................................. 58
4. Punching shear resistance of flat slabs with conventional shear reinforcement .............. 59
4.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 59
4.2. Solution of slab/column C3-01 interface ................................................................. 61
4.2.1. Punching shear resistance without shear reinforcement .................................. 61
4.2.2. Punching shear resistance with shear reinforcement........................................ 63
4.3. Solution of other column/slab interfaces in the first floor slab ................................ 69
4.4. Basement Slab .......................................................................................................... 70
4.5. Summary .................................................................................................................. 73
5. Punching shear resistance of flat slabs with Fiber-Reinforced Polymers (FRP) ............. 74
5.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 74
5.2. Case of solid carbon sheet applied to the whole critical perimeter ............................... 74
5.2. Case of carbon crossed strips ................................................................................... 75
5.3. Comparison of the punching shear strengthening methods ..................................... 78
5.4. Summary .................................................................................................................. 79
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 80
References ................................................................................................................................ 82
Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 86
APPENDIX A: CALCULATION OF REINFORCEMENT TO RESIST TORSION
FOR GROUND FLOOR BEAM GL8 .................................................................................. 87
APPENDIX B: PLANS AND SECTIONS OF SAINT CROSS COLLEGE .................. 104
APPENDIX C :ULS OUTPUT OF SCIA ENGINEER .................................................... 111
APPENDIX D: SAMPLE CALCULATION OF THE LONGITUDINAL
REINFORCEMENT OF THE FIRST FLOOR SLAB ACCORDING TO EUROCODE
2 IN TEDDS SOFTWARE .................................................................................................. 114

APPENDIX E: PUNCHING SHEAR CALCULATIONS FOR COLUMNS C3-02, C3-
03, C3-04 OF THE FIRST FLOOR SLAB ........................................................................ 116
APPENDIX F: PUNCHING SHEAR VERIFICATIONS FOR COLUMN/SLAB AND
PILE/SLAB INTERFACES IN BASEMENT SLAB ........................................................ 119

Table of figures
Figure 1, Forth Rail Bridge in Edinburgh ................................................................................ 12

Figure 2, Different types of slabs and supports ........................................................................ 13
Figure 3, Flat plate concrete slab ............................................................................................. 13
Figure 4, Optimisation of the height of the building using flat slabs ....................................... 14
Figure 5, Punching shear failure surface .................................................................................. 14
Figure 6, Collapse of Sampoong Department Store due to punching shear failure ................. 15
Figure 7, Example of punching shear failure ........................................................................... 18
Figure 8, (a) Bent-up bar, (b) Single –leg stirrup, (c) Multiple-leg stirrup, (d) Closed-stirrup or
closed tie ........................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 9, Typical shearhead reinforcement .............................................................................. 20
Figure 10, Headed shear studs (Source: Shearail by FRANK manual) ................................... 21
Figure 11, Verification model for punching shear at the ultimate limit state according to
Eurocode 2........................................................................................................................ 22
Figure 12, Typical basic control perimeters around loaded areas according to Eurocode 2 .... 23
Figure 13, Basic control perimeters for loaded areas close to or at edged or corner according
to Eurocode 2 ................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 14, Control perimeter near opening according to Eurocode 2 ...................................... 24
Figure 15, Combined action of shear and shear due to moment transfer at interior column ,
(Alkarani, Ravindra , 2013).............................................................................................. 25
Figure 16, Recommended values for β according to Eurocode 2 ............................................ 26
Figure 17, Possible arrangements of shear reinforcement and control perimeters .................. 28
Figure 18, Illustration of orthogonal arrangement ................................................................... 29
Figure 19, Plan showing the required spacing of shear reinforcement according to Eurocode 2
for radial layout ................................................................................................................ 30
Figure 20, Section showing the required spacing of shear reinforcement according to
Eurocode 2........................................................................................................................ 30
Figure 21, FRP bonding and removing excess resin by rolling ............................................... 31
Figure 22, Punching failure mechanism ................................................................................... 33
Figure 23, Equilibrium of a RC section resisting punching shear ........................................... 34

Figure 24, Possible arrangements of FRP solid sheets (a) and crossed FRP strips (b) , Source :
AFGC – Association Francaise de Genie Civil, 2010 ...................................................... 35
Figure 25, Typical FRP resistances, Source: Fib(International Federation of Structural
Concrete), September 2007 .............................................................................................. 36
Figure 26, Outer effective perimeter and length of anchorage ................................................ 39
Figure 27, Saint Cross College location in Oxford .................................................................. 41
Figure 28, Ground floor layout ................................................................................................ 41
Figure 29, Typical transfer slab................................................................................................ 42
Figure 30, Saint Cross College as modelled in Scia Engineer View 1 .................................... 43
Figure 31, Saint Cross College as modelled in Scia Engineer View 2 .................................... 44
Figure 32, Global mesh of the model ....................................................................................... 45
Figure 33, Mesh of typical floor of the model ......................................................................... 45
Figure 34, Dead and Live Loads .............................................................................................. 46
Figure 35, General arrangement first floor, Saint Cross College ............................................. 47
Figure 36, First floor slab,columns and walls as modelled in Scia Engineer .......................... 48
Figure 37, Moment Mx in the first floor slab, Ultimate Limit State (ULS) ............................. 49
Figure 38, Moment My in the first floor slab, Ultimate Limit State (ULS)............................. 49
Figure 39, Deflection of the first floor slab, Serviceability Limit State (SLS) ........................ 50
Figure 40, First floor elements supported by the first floor slab which do not continue to the
ground............................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 41, Longitudinal reinforcement of first floor slab ........................................................ 52
Figure 42, Longitudinal reinforcement of first floor slab, Sample Tedds software calculation
according to Eurocode 2 for the area in circle ................................................................. 53
Figure 43, Longitudinal reinforcement of second floor slab .................................................... 54
Figure 44, Longitudinal reinforcement of third floor slab ....................................................... 54
Figure 45, Illustration of the excel spreadsheet for the calculation of reinforcement quantities
.......................................................................................................................................... 55
Figure 46, Typical reinforcement quantities ............................................................................ 56
Figure 47, Location of ground beam GL8 subjected to torsion ............................................... 58
Figure 48, Scia output, ULS Axial forces of columns C3-01,02,03,04 ................................... 60
Figure 49, Distance of the basic control perimeter .................................................................. 61
Figure 50, Orthogonal reinforcement layout for C3-01 ........................................................... 66
Figure 51, Radial reinforcement layout for C3-01 ................................................................... 67

Figure 52, Effective outermost perimeters of the orthogonal and radial arrangement ............ 68
Figure 53, Basement plan and pile/column reference numbers ............................................... 70
Figure 54, Scia engineer output, ULS axial forces of piles at the basement slab .................... 71
Figure 55, Scia engineer output, ULS axial forces of columns at the basement slab .............. 72
Figure 56, Bending moment My in beam GL8 ........................................................................ 87
Figure 57, Shear force V in beam GL8 .................................................................................... 88
Figure 58, Torsional moment Mx in beam GL8 ...................................................................... 88
Figure 59, Saint Cross College plan, Basement ..................................................................... 104
Figure 60, Saint Cross College plan, Ground floor ................................................................ 105
Figure 61, Saint Cross College plan, First floor ..................................................................... 106
Figure 62, Saint Cross College plan, Second floor ................................................................ 107
Figure 63, Saint Cross College plan, Third floor ................................................................... 108
Figure 64, Saint Cross College plan, Roof ............................................................................. 109
Figure 65, Saint Cross College section .................................................................................. 110
Figure 66, ULS output of Scia engineer fot the second floor slab (direction x) .................... 111
Figure 67, ULS output of Scia engineer fot the second floor slab (direction y) .................... 112
Figure 68, ULS output of Scia engineer fot the third floor slab (direction x) ........................ 112
Figure 69, ULS output of Scia engineer fot the third floor slab (direction y) ........................ 113
Figure 70, Tedds sample calculation page 1 .......................................................................... 114
Figure 71, Tedds sample calculation page 2 .......................................................................... 115
Figure 72, Punching shear verification for column C3-02 ..................................................... 116

List of tables
Table 1, Reinforcement quantities of slabs of Saint Cross College………………………..56

Presentation of Pell Frischmann
Pell Frischmann dates back to 1926 when the late Cecil Pell founded C J Pell and Partners. At
the time the company concentrated mainly on building structures. Since the 1970’s the
company has grown and diversified considerably and is now the largest privately owned civil
engineering consultancy in the United Kingdom, with 7 UK and many overseas offices. The
main office is situated in London and specialises in the sector of Building Structures.
Pell Frischmann specialises in the following sectors: Airports, Bridges, Building Services,
Building Structures, Environment and Process Technology, Fire Engineering, Highways,
Land Development and Regeneration, Power, Solid Waste, Sustainability, Traffic and
Transportation, Water and Wastewater. The company is well-known for numerous
challenging and complex projects such as the Kingsgate House in London, the New Street
Square in London and the Forth Rail Bridge in Edinburgh. Pell Frischmann is recognised by
the professional bodies and Institutions for its excellence through innovation. The company’s
projects and staff have been commended for achievements in a variety of sectors and have
received a number of awards over the last few years.
Figure 1, Forth Rail Bridge in Edinburgh

1. Introduction
1.1. Flat slabs
Reinforced concrete slabs are used in many types of structures. They can be divided into slabs
that transmit their loads on columns via beams and slabs that are directly supported on
columns without the use of any beam (flat slabs). In order to facilitate the transfer of forces
from the flat slab to the column and decrease the local stresses applied to the slab, column
heads or drop panels can also be used. However, the slabs can have the form of flat plates and
be directly supported on the columns without the use of any other mean.
Figure 2, Different types of slabs and supports
Figure 3, Flat plate concrete slab

Because of their simplicity, flat plates are widely used in parking garages, offices as well as
apartment buildings. This strategy optimises the height and the interior space of the building,
as the extra thicknesses of the beams, column heads or drop panels are excluded. In addition,
flat plates require simple formwork and reduce the construction time needed. These economic
and architectural advantages make flat plates a very desirable structural system.
Figure 4, Optimisation of the height of the building using flat slabs
Supporting a slab directly on a column can lead to a punching shear failure, as the slab may
not be able to support locally the axial force of the column. The punching shear failure is
of brittle nature, without warnings and almost immediate. In this case, an accurate analysis of
the loads acting on the intersections between columns and the slab must be made. The
punching shear is characterised by a truncated cone or pyramid failure.
Figure 5, Punching shear failure surface

One of the most notorious structural failures due to punching shear is the collapse of
Sampoong department store in South Korea in 1995 in the space of 20 seconds. More than
502 people were killed and nearly 1000 were injured.
Figure 6, Collapse of Sampoong Department Store due to punching shear failure
The design of flat slabs is mostly limited by the ultimate capacity of punching shear and by
serviceability conditions (large deflections in service). These criteria lead to the selection of
the slab thickness and the concrete quality (Alkarani and Ravindra. R , 2013).

1.2. Outline of thesis
The thesis concerns the detailed calculation of the flat slab reinforcement of the building
«Saint Cross College» which is currently being designed by Pell Frischmann. It also includes
research on the punching shear capacity of flat slabs.
Chapter 2 contains the literature review for the punching shear phenomenon. The provisions
of Eurocode 2 as well as some other experimental formulas are presented. An innovative and
pioneering method to resist punching shear failure is also presented. This method concerns the
use of FRP sheets as a strengthening tool instead of the conventional use of steel bars.
In Chapter 3 the project «Saint Cross College» is presented. In addition, the project is
modelled in the Finite Element software Scia Engineer, developed by NEMETSCHEK. The
output of the analysis is then used for the detailed calculation of the longitudinal
reinforcement of the flat slabs of the building.
In Chapters 4 and 5, the punching shear phenomenon in the column/slab interfaces of the
building is analytically investigated. The formulas and the codes presented in chapter 2 are
now used for the calculation of the punching shear reinforcement in these areas. The possible
arrangements of the conventional steel reinforcement are presented and compared.
Furthermore, the conventional reinforcement is then compared to the innovative use of FRP
sheets.

2. Literature review
2.1. Introduction
Supporting a slab directly on a column can lead to a punching shear failure, as the slab may
not be able to support locally the axial force of the column. This chapter describes the
parameters which influence the punching shear capacity of a concrete slab under a
concentrated loading, as occurred from experimental studies and proposed mechanical
models. Firstly, the punching shear resistance of slabs without shear reinforcement is
evaluated. In addition, the conventional types of shear reinforcement (shear studs, bent-up
bars, stirrups etc.) that are widely used in flat slabs are assessed. The provisions of the current
European code (Eurocode 2 2004) are also presented.
Furthermore, some innovative materials that can be used as punching shear reinforcement, the
behaviour of which is not fully understood until today, are the Fiber Reinforced Polymers
(FRP) matrixes. Corrosion of steel reinforcement is an important durability problem, which
leads to costly repairs and structural deterioration. The use of fiber reinforced polymers is a
very promising technology which can help to overcome the problem of corrosion (El-
Ghandour, A.W, Pilakoutas, K., Waldron, P. , 2003 ). In addition, the use of glued matrixes
has the advantage of quickly repairing existing structures that need to be strengthened. In this
chapter, some proposed formulas which take into account the effect of FRP matrixes to the
punching shear capacity of flat slabs are presented (AFGC – Association Française de Genie
Civil – Réparation et renforcement des structures en béton au moyen des matériaux
composites, Septembre 2010). It should be noted that none of European recognised design
standards provides specifications for the punching shear capacity of RC slabs reinforced with
FRP sheets.

2.2. Punching Shear Failure
2.2.1. Punching Shear in General

The dead and live loads of a slab supported directly on a column induce high shear stresses in
the slab/ column interface. These stresses can result in the column ‘punching’ through the slab
(Alkarani and Ravindra. R, 2013). The punching shear is characterised by a truncated cone or
pyramid failure as presented in figure 5. The punching shear failure occurs similarly in
foundations.
Figure 7, Example of punching shear failure
A slab of a specific thickness and quality of concrete, which is supported by a column of

known dimensions, has a maximum resistance in punching shear. Generally, the resistance of
a slab in punching shear can be increased by:

 Expanding the interface which transfers shear stresses from slab to column. This can
be achieved by locally increasing the thickness of the slab in the vicinity of column
with drop panels or column capitals. Also, the dimensions of the column or the
overall thickness of the slab can be increased.
 Using concrete of high quality
 Using punching shear reinforcement such as bent-up bars, rail, studs, stirrups or FRP
matrixes in the area adjacent to the column.
The punching shear failure is a brittle failure with no warnings. For this reason, it is generally
desirable to ensure that the flexural failure will occur prior to any shear failure. The criteria
for deciding the best strengthening method for punching shear failure are structural and
economical. The issue of ductility, which is a very desirable structural behaviour, is also
important.
2.2.2. Conventional types of punching shear reinforcement
Different types of shear reinforcement have been proposed by civil engineers in order to
increase the strength and ductility of concrete slabs. The role of shear reinforcement is
primarily to stop the opening of the critical shear crack, increase the compression zone and
aggregate interlock which leads to the increase of punching shear strength. Shear
reinforcement can be classified as follow (M.A. Polak, E. El-Salakawy, and N.L. Hammill,
2005):
 Stirrups, single or double leg bar, bent-up bars, and closed ties as shown in figure 8
 Shearheads as shown in figure 9
 Stud rails, shear studs and shear bolts as shown in figure 10
 Other new and modern shear reinforcement

Figure 8, (a) Bent-up bar, (b) Single –leg stirrup, (c) Multiple-leg stirrup, (d) Closed-stirrup or
closed tie
Figure 9, Typical shearhead reinforcement

Figure 10, Headed shear studs (Source: Shearail by FRANK manual)
Each type of reinforcement has its own advantages and disadvantages which are related to
economy, practicality or structural efficiency. It should be noted that most of the tests on slabs
strengthened with headed shear studs show a ductile and satisfactory strengthening
performance (M.A. Polak, E. El-Salakawy, and N.L. Hammill, 2005). As it is also a very
convenient and practical type of reinforcement, it has been recognised by many standards as
an effective way to provide punching shear reinforcement for slabs.

2.3. Analytical punching shear failure model in Eurocode 2
2.3.1. Punching shear verification model

According to Eurocode 2, punching shear can result from a concentrated load or reaction
acting on a relatively small area, called the loaded area Aload of a slab or a foundation. The
proposed verification model for checking punching shear failure is shown in the figure below.
Figure 11, Verification model for punching shear at the ultimate limit state according to
Eurocode 2
The shear resistance should be checked at the face of the column and at the basic control
perimeter u1. If shear reinforcement is required a further perimeter uout,ef should be found
where shear reinforcement is no longer provided. The basic control perimeter u1 should be
taken to be at a distance 2d from the loaded area and should be constructed so as to minimise
its length. Typical examples of the basic control perimeter are given in the figure below.

Figure 12, Typical basic control perimeters around loaded areas according to Eurocode 2
However, for a loaded area situated near an edge or a corner, the control perimeter should be
taken as shown in figure 13.
Figure 13, Basic control perimeters for loaded areas close to or at edged or corner according
to Eurocode 2
In addition, for loaded areas situated near openings, if the shortest distance between the
perimeter of the loaded area and the edge of the opening does not exceed 6d, that part of the
control perimeter contained between two tangents drawn to the outline of the opening from
the centre of the loaded area is considered to be ineffective (see figure 14).

Figure 14, Control perimeter near opening according to Eurocode 2
2.3.2. Punching shear calculation
2.3.2.1. General
The design procedure for punching shear is based on checks at the face of the column and at
the basic control perimeter u1. If shear reinforcement is required a further perimeter uout,ef (see
figure 17) should be found where shear reinforcement is no longer required. The following
design stressed (MPa) along the control sections are defined according to Eurocode 2.
VRd,c is the design value of the punching shear resistance of a slab without punching
shear reinforcement along the control section considered.
VRd,cs is the design value of the punching shear resistance of a slab with punching
shear reinforcement along the control section considered
VRd,max is the design value of the maximum punching shear resistance along the control
section considered.
The checks that must be carried out are:
1. At the column perimeter or the perimeter of the loaded area, the maximum punching
shear stress should not be exceeded.
VEd ≤ VRd,max
2. Punching shear reinforcement is not necessary if :
VEd ≤ VRd,c

3. Where support reaction is eccentric with regard to the control perimeter, the maximum
shear stress should be taken as :
𝑉𝐸𝑑
𝑉𝐸𝑑 = 𝛽 ∗
𝑢𝑖 ∗ 𝑑
where
d is the mean effective depth of the slab
ui is the length of the control perimeter being considered
β is a factor for eccentricity as the unbalanced moments around the column affect the
shear stresses (see figure below).
Figure 15, Combined action of shear and shear due to moment transfer at interior column ,
(Alkarani, Ravindra , 2013)
According to Eurocode 2, for structures where the lateral stability does not depend on frame
action between the slabs and the columns and where the adjacent spans do not differ in length
by more than 25% approximate values for β may be used (see figure below).

Figure 16, Recommended values for β according to Eurocode 2
2.3.2.2. Punching shear resistance of slabs and column bases without shear
reinforcement
The punching shear resistance of a slab should be assessed for the basic control section. The
design punching shear resistance [MPa] may be calculated as follows:
1 3 1
𝑣𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = 𝐶𝑅𝑑,𝑐 ∗ 𝑘 ∗ (100 ∗ 𝜌𝑙 ∗ 𝑓𝑐𝑘 )3 + 𝑘1 ∗ 𝜎𝑐𝑝 ≥ 𝑣𝑚𝑖𝑛 + 𝑘1 ∗ 𝜎𝑐𝑝 = 0,035 ∗ 𝑘 2 ∗ 𝑓𝑐𝑘 2 + 𝑘1 ∗ 𝜎𝑐𝑝
, where
0.18
𝐶𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = = 0,12
𝛾𝑐

200
𝑘 =1+ √ <2
𝑑
𝑓𝑐𝑘 is in MPa
𝜌𝑙 = (𝜌𝑙𝑦 ∗ 𝜌𝑙𝑧 )0.5 ≤ 0,02
𝜌𝑙𝑦 , 𝜌𝑙𝑧 relate to the bonded tension stein in y- and z- directions respectively. The values
should be calculated as mean values taking into account a slab width equal to the column
width plus 3d each side. Also,
𝜎𝑐𝑝 = (𝜎𝑐𝑦 + 𝜎𝑐𝑧 )/2
Where σcy, σcz are the normal concrete stresses in the critical section in y- and z- directions
(positive if compression in MPa)
2.3.2.3. Punching shear resistance of slabs and column bases with shear reinforcement
Where shear reinforcement is required it should be calculated in accordance with the
following expression:
𝑑 1
𝑣𝑅𝑑,𝑐𝑠 = 0,75 ∗ 𝑣𝑅𝑑,𝑐 + 1,5 ∗ ∗ 𝐴𝑠𝑤 ∗ 𝑓𝑦𝑤𝑑,𝑒𝑓 ∗ ∗ 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑎
𝑠𝑟 𝑢1 ∗ 𝑑
where
Asw is the area of one perimeter of shear reinforcement around the column [mm2]
Sr is the radial spacing of perimeter of shear reinforcement [mm]
fywd,ef is the effective design strength of the punching shear reinforcement , according to
fywd,ef = 250 +0,25d ≤ fywd [MPa]
d is the mean of the effective depths in the orthogonal directions [mm]
a is the angle between the shear reinforcement and the planed of the slab
In addition, adjacent to the column the punching shear resistance is limited to a maximum of :

𝛽 ∗ 𝑉𝐸𝑑
𝑣𝐸𝑑,0 = ≤ 𝑣𝑅𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0,5 ∗ 𝑣 ∗ 𝑓𝑐𝑑
𝑢1 ∗ 𝑑
where
fcd = fck/γc
𝑓𝑐𝑘
ν = (1 − )
250
Finally, the control perimeter at which shear reinforcement is no longer required u out,ef should
be calculated from the expression :
𝛽 ∗ 𝑉𝐸𝑑
𝑢𝑜𝑢𝑡,𝑒𝑓,𝑟𝑒𝑞 =
𝑣𝑅𝑑,𝑐 ∗ 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑓
The outermost perimeter of shear reinforcement should be placed at a distance not greater
than kd (where k = 1,5 according to Eurocode2) within uout,ef. The figure below shows two
possible arrangements that are proposed in Eurocode 2. These are radial arrangement and the
orthogonal arrangement. It should be noted that for the orthogonal arrangement only the part
of the dashed line is considered to be an effective perimeter. The length of the effective
perimeter of the above calculation is equal to the length of this dashed line. Further research
and comparison between these two arrangements is presented in chapter 4.
Figure 17, Possible arrangements of shear reinforcement and control perimeters

Figure 18, Illustration of orthogonal arrangement
2.3.3. Detailing requirements for punching shear reinforcement
This paragraph presents the rules imposed by Eurocode 2 concerning the spacing and the
position of the shear reinforcement. In chapter 4, we use these rules in order to choose the
most economical and structurally efficient arrangement.
Where punching shear reinforcement is required it should be placed between the loaded
area/column and kd (where k=1,5) inside the control perimeter at which shear reinforcement
is no longer required. It should be provided in at least two perimeters of link legs. The spacing
of the link leg perimeters should not exceed 0,75d. In addition, the distance between the face
of a support and the nearest shear reinforcement taken into account in the design should not
exceed 0,5d.

Figure 19, Plan showing the required spacing of shear reinforcement according to Eurocode 2
for radial layout
Figure 20, Section showing the required spacing of shear reinforcement according to
Eurocode 2

2.4. Use of externally bonded FRP sheets
2.4.1. Introduction
As already mentioned, the classical strengthening techniques for concrete slab-column
connections, in order to prevent sudden punching shear failure, include the use of shear
reinforcement, the use of concrete of better quality, thickening the slab, increasing the column
dimensions and using column heads. These methods do provide enough additional strength to
the slab, however they are not practical, difficult to install, expensive and some of them are
aesthetically not pleasing.
On the other hand, strengthening slabs with external FRP sheets is simple, does not require
excessive labour, does not affect the architectural character of the building and offers the
unique possibility of repairing existing structures very quickly. In addition, corrosion of steel
reinforcement is a major durability problem leading to inevitable cost repairs and loss of use.
The use of FRP sheets is considered to be a very promising technology for overcoming the
problem of corrosion. However, the main problem of civil engineers is to evaluate the
contribution of the FRP sheets to the punching shear resistance of the slab. At the moment,
none of the recognised design standards provides information for the punching shear
resistance of a slab reinforced with FRP sheets. Generally, the FRP bonding to the slab is
achieved via a resin which is initially applied to the RC slab.
Figure 21, FRP bonding and removing excess resin by rolling

In this paragraph, we will present the analytical model that calculates the contribution of the
FRP sheets to the punching shear resistance of a reinforced concrete slab. This model is based
on the articles which are listed below:
[1] MENETREY PHILIPPE. Synthesis of punching failure in reinforced concrete. Cem Concr
Comp 2002;24:497-507
[2] E.H. ROCHDI,D. BIGAUD, E.FERRIER, P.HAMELIN ; Ultimate behaviour of CFRP
strengthened RC flat slabs under a centrally applied load. Composite Structures. 72(2006)69-
78.
[3] L. MICHEL, E. FERRIER, D.BIGAUD, A. AGBOSSOU; ‘Criteria for Punching Failure
Mode in RC Slabs Reinforced by Externally Bonded CFRP’. Journal of Composite Structures,
Elsevier ed., Volume 81, Issue 3, December 2007, Pages 438-449.
[4] AFGC – Association Francaise de Genie Civil – Réparation et renforcement des structures
en béton au moyen des matériaux composites, Septembre 2010.
The French Association of Civil Engineering has published the document «Réparation et
renforcement des structures en béton au moyen des matériaux composites» on Septembre
2010. This document summarises the formula for calculating the total punching shear
resistance of a slab bonded externally with FRP sheets.
The calculation is based on the article of Menétrey «Synthesis of punching failure in

reinforced concrete» published in 2002, who initially proposed a formula that calculates the
punching shear resistance of a RC slab without FRP sheets. The formula was then extended
by E.H. ROCHDI, D. BIGAUD, E.FERRIER and P.HAMELIN with the article «Ultimate
behaviour of CFRP strengthened RC flat slabs under a centrally applied load» published in
2004. The formula was altered in order to calculate the beneficial effects of a solid FRP sheet
bonded externally to the slab. Finally, L. MICHEL, E. FERRIER, D.BIGAUD, A.
AGBOSSOU extended this approach even more by proposing a formula that calculates the
punching shear resistance of a slab reinforced by crossed FRP strips, which are more
economical than a solid FRP sheet. This article is called «Criteria for Punching Failure Mode
in RC Slabs Reinforced by Externally Bonded CFRP» and was published in 2006.

2.4.2. Analytical model
2.4.2.1. Punching failure mechanism
The main points of the punching shear failure mechanism are (E.H. ROCHDI,D. BIGAUD,
E.FERRIER, P.HAMELIN , 2004) :
 Formation of a roughly circular crack around the column periphery on the tension
surface of the slab and propagation into the compression zone of concrete
 Formation of a new lateral and diagonal flexural crack
 Initiation of an inclined shear crack near middepth of the slab, observed at about half
to two thirds of the ultimate load
 With increasing loads the inclined cracks develops towards the compression zone and
the tension zone
Figure 22, Punching failure mechanism

2.4.2.2. Proposed formula
The formula that calculates the punching shear resistance of a RC slab reinforced with FRP
sheets is now presented. The proposed formula is based on the assumption that the
equilibrium of the concrete section is assured by the contributions of the concrete, the flexural
steel and the FRP sheets.
Figure 23, Equilibrium of a RC section resisting punching shear
Thus Fult = Fct +Fdows + Fdowf, as illustrated in the above figure, where Fult is the total punching
shear resistance of the slab.

The resistance offered by the concrete and the longitudinal reinforcement was analytically
presented in the Eurocode 2 specifications in paragraph 2.3. This paragraph emphasizes in the
calculation of the additional resistance Fdowf provided by the FRP sheets. Once calculated, the
value Fdowf can be added to the resistance offered by the concrete and the longitudinal
reinforcement. The sum of these resistances is the total punching shear capacity of the RC
slab reinforced with FRP sheets. Two cases are examined:
A. Reinforcement with solid FRP sheets
B. Reinforcement with crossed FRP strips
Figure 24, Possible arrangements of FRP solid sheets (a) and crossed FRP strips (b) , Source :
AFGC – Association Francaise de Genie Civil, 2010
It should also be mentioned that FRP sheets are not isotropic materials. The resistances
depend on the orientation of the fibres and the forces. Some typical examples of FRP
resistances are shown in the figure below.

Figure 25, Typical FRP resistances, Source: Fib(International Federation of Structural

Concrete), September 2007
A. Reinforcement with solid FRP sheets
In this case the contribution of the FRP sheet VRd,f to the total resistance of the slab can be
calculated by the formula:
𝜓 𝑢1,𝑓 ∗ 𝑡𝑓 ∗ 𝑛𝑝 𝜎𝑓,90 𝜎𝑓,0

𝑣𝑅𝑑,𝑓 = ∗ ∗( + )
𝜒 𝑢1 ∗ 𝛾𝑓 2 ∗ 𝑐1 2 ∗ 𝑐2
where
c1,c2 are the column dimensions
2d is the distance between the column and the basic control perimeter
𝜎𝑓,90 is the resistance of the FRP sheet in the direction of 90 degrees
𝜎𝑓,0 is the resistance of the FRP sheet in the direction of 0 degrees
𝑛𝑝 is the number of FRP sheets
𝑡𝑓 is the thickness of a FRP sheet

𝑢1 is the basic control perimeter
𝑢1,𝑓 is the total width of FRP sheets thar are cut by the basic control perimeter
𝑣𝑅𝑑,𝑓 is the punching shear resistance provided by the FRP sheet
𝛾𝑓 is a security factor equal to 1,15
𝜓 is a factor that depends on the thickness of the FRP sheet
Thickness (mm) 1 2 3 4 5
ψ 2,5 2,2 1,9 1,7 1,5
𝜒 = 1 for a laminate type of reinforcement
𝜒 = 2,5 for pultruded reinforcement
B. Reinforcement with crossed FRP strips
In this case the contribution of the crossed FRP strips VRd,f to the total resistance of the
slab can be calculated by the formula:
𝑣𝑅𝑑,𝑓 = 𝑣𝑅𝑑,𝑓𝑦 + 𝑣𝑅𝑑,𝑓𝑧 =
𝜓 𝑢1,𝑓𝑦 ∗ 𝑤𝑓𝑦 ∗ 𝑡𝑓𝑦 ∗ 𝑛𝑝𝑦 𝜓 𝑢1,𝑓𝑧 ∗ 𝑤𝑓𝑧 ∗ 𝑡𝑓𝑧 ∗ 𝑛𝑝𝑧

= ∗ 2 ∗ 𝑓𝑓𝑑 + ∗ ∗ 𝑓𝑓𝑑
𝜒 𝑢1 ∗ 𝛾𝑓 ∗ 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑓 𝜒 𝑢12 ∗ 𝛾𝑓 ∗ 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑓
where
𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑓 is the effective height of the slab
𝑓𝑓𝑑 is the characteristic resistance of the FRP sheet
𝑛𝑝𝑦 is the number of FRP sheets in direction y
𝑛𝑝𝑧 is the number of FRP sheets in direction z
𝑡𝑓𝑦 is the thickness of a FRP sheet in direction y

𝑡𝑓𝑧 is the thickness of a FRP sheet in direction z
𝑤𝑓𝑦 is the width of a FRP strip in direction y
𝑤𝑓𝑧 is the width of a FRP strip in direction z
u1 is the basic control perimeter
𝑢1,𝑓𝑦 is the total width of FRP sheets thar are cut by the basic control perimeter (direction y)
𝑢1,𝑓𝑧 is the total width of FRP sheets thar are cut by the basic control perimeter (direction z)
𝑣𝑅𝑑,𝑓𝑦 is the punching shear resistance in direction y
𝑣𝑅𝑑,𝑓𝑧 is the punching shear resistance in direction z
𝛾𝑓 , 𝜓, 𝜒 are the same as in case A
Finally in both cases the FRP sheets must be properly anchored in order to obtain an effective
outer perimeter uout,ef of concrete that can resist punching shear without the FRP sheets (like
in the case of conventional steel reinforcement). The outer effective perimeter in this case is
equal to:
𝑢𝑜𝑢𝑡,𝑒𝑓 = 2 ∗ [(𝑐1 + 𝑐2 + 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑐,𝑑 ) + 2 ∗ 𝜋 ∗ (𝑑 + 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑐,𝑑 )]
where
𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑐,𝑑 is the length of anchorage shown in the figure below.

Figure 26, Outer effective perimeter and length of anchorage
𝛽∗𝑉𝐸𝑑
This outer control perimeter should be superior to 𝑣 as presented in paragraph 2.3.
𝑅𝑑,𝑐 ∗𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑓
An analytical example of externally bonded FRP sheets is presented in chapter 5.
2.5. Summary
In this chapter, the mechanism of punching shear failure was assessed. The provisions of
Eurocode 2 for the punching shear capacity of concrete with and without steel reinforcement
were analytically evaluated. Also, the conventional types of shear reinforcement were shown.
Furthermore, a formula that calculates the contribution of externally bonded FRP sheets to the
total punching shear capacity of a RC slab was presented. This formula was based on four
published articles that were summarised by The French Association of Civil Engineering in
the document «Réparation et renforcement des structures en béton au moyen des matériaux
composites» published on Septembre 2010.

3. Reinforcement of concrete elements of Saint Cross

College in Oxford
In the next paragraphs a building consisted of flat slabs will be studied. The name of the
building is Saint Cross College. The aim of this study is to calculate the required
reinforcement of the building’s flat slabs. This is comprised by the longitudinal slab
reinforcement and the punching shear reinforcement that is necessary in many slab/column
interfaces. The different theoretical models that calculate the punching shear capacity of a
slab presented in chapter 2 will be used and compared. Firstly, a Finite Element model of the
building is created. Then the output of the model is used for the calculation of the longitudinal
and punching shear reinforcement.
3.1. The project
St Cross College Quad Development project is a four storey RC concrete building with one
storey of basement. It is situated in Oxford, UK. Ground floor consists of seminar rooms, café
and library spaces, bike storage as well as a lecture theatre. First, second and third floors are
used only as residential spaces and the roof level is only accessible for maintenance purposes.
Finally, the basement is designed to accommodate a plant room, a storage area and a wine
cellar. Vertical access to all floors is provided by two staircases and a lift. Slab openings are
present at various locations to ensure adequate space for the vertical risers. In terms of façade,
lightweight GRC panels will be used for aesthetical reasons.
The slabs of the building are flat and directly supported to columns or walls. Few beams exist
in the building. The building has a L-shaped plan and its height is 11,80m. A plan of the
building with its surroundings is demonstrated below:

Figure 27, Saint Cross College’s location in Oxford (Post code: OX1 3LZ)
Figure 28, Ground floor layout
The detailed plans and sections of the building are presented in Appendix B.
3.2. Structural system and aim of calculations
This thesis concerns the detailed calculation of the reinforcement of the flat slabs of Saint
Cross College. The building is firstly modelled at the Finite Element Software Scia Engineer,
developed by NEMETSCHEK. The output of this model will provide the internal forces in
the slabs. We will then calculate the required longitudinal reinforcement of the slabs of the
building. These reinforcement quantities are expected to be quite high. This occurs due to two
reasons.
Firstly, the slabs are directly supported to the columns without the use of any beams, which
results in bigger deflections and internal forces in the slab due to live and dead loads.
Secondly, in some cases the columns and the walls of the building are not aligned above and
below a floor. In these locations, the slab acts like a transfer slab, which transfers the forces of
the column above to the column below. In these regions, the slab is highly stressed and needs
a bigger amount of reinforcement. In addition, in this case the slab/column interfaces must be
thoroughly checked, as they must be able to resist a punching shear failure caused by the high
axial forces of the columns and the consequent high local stresses in the slab. It must be noted
that the slabs of the building are generally thin (thickness from 225mm to 350mm).
Figure 29, Typical transfer slab

In chapter 3.3., the FE model in Scia Engineer is presented. Then the output of the software is
used for the calculation of the longitudinal slab reinforcement. In chapter 4, the punching
shear resistance of some critical column/slab interfaces is assessed. The various possible
arrangements of the punching shear reinforcement are compared and evaluated in terms of
structural efficiency, practicality and economy. Furthermore, an innovative method of
punching shear reinforcement is presented in chapter 5. It concerns the use of FRP sheets as a
strengthening method. This solution is finally compared to the conventional ways of
providing punching shear reinforcement.
3.3. Scia model
Saint Cross College is modelled in the software Scia Engineer, which is developed by
NEMETSCHEK. Scia Engineer is widely used for the static analysis of structures via the
finite element method. In addition, the software is capable of providing directly the required
reinforcement of the different elements of the structure according to Eurocode 2. The figures
below show Saint Cross College as modelled in Scia Engineer:
Figure 30, Saint Cross College as modelled in Scia Engineer View 1

Figure 31, Saint Cross College as modelled in Scia Engineer View 2
3.3.1. Elements and Mesh
Two types of elements are used for the modelling of the building:
A. 1D elements for the modelling of columns and beams

B. 2D elements for the modelling of walls and slabs
For the creation of a 1D element the section of the element must be defined. We then input the
beginning and the ending points of the element. Furthermore, for the creation of 2D elements
a corresponding area with its thickness must be defined. The global mesh is obtained
automatically, but there is the option to refine it locally when necessary.

Figure 32, Global mesh of the model
Figure 33, Mesh of typical floor of the model

3.3.2. Restraints and Supports
The building is supported to the ground via piles, which are represented in the model as
springs. In the position of each pile, we input 1 vertical, 2 horizontal and 3 rotational springs,
which are provided by the geotechnical department after a number of iterations between the
structural and the geotechnical model.
3.3.3. Loads on the building
The unfactored dead and live loads of the building are summarised in the table below:
Figure 34, Dead and Live Loads
Generally, for the Ultimate Limit State (ULS) of the building the Dead Loads (G) are
multiplied by a factor equal to 1,35 and the Live Loads (Q) are multiplied by a factor equal to
1,5. Also, some factors ψi are occasionally used for the combination of the live loads
according to Eurocode 2. The building is of category: E (stockage) at the basement, C
(congregation) at the ground floor and A(residential) at the first, second and third floors.

3.4. Reinforcement of slabs
In this paragraph, we will present analytically the output and the solution of the first floor
slab. The second and third floors are resolved similarly.
The plan of the first floor slab is shown in the figure below:
Figure 35, General arrangement first floor, Saint Cross College

Figure 36, First floor slab, columns and walls as modelled in Scia Engineer
3.4.1. Finite Element output
The output of the model (maximum moments Mx and My) in the first floor slab for the ULS
loading is presented below:

Figure 37, Moment Mx in the first floor slab, Ultimate Limit State (ULS)
Figure 38, Moment My in the first floor slab, Ultimate Limit State (ULS)
Also, the output of the deflection for a SLS (Serviceability Limit State) loading is:
Figure 39, Deflection of the first floor slab, Serviceability Limit State (SLS)
As many of the columns and the walls are not aligned above and below the first floor slab, we
observe big positive or negative moments in local areas around the columns. These columns
can be supporting (negative moments) or be supported (positive moments) by the slab. In the
locations where columns are not aligned, the slab acts like a transfer slab, which transfers the
forces of the column above to the column below. The plan below shows both the
columns/walls that are supporting the slab below the first floor and the columns /walls that are
supported by the first floor slab and do not continue until the ground.

Figure 40, First floor elements supported by the first floor slab which do not continue to the
ground
The maximum and minimum ULS moments are equal to +190kN*m/m and -270kN*m/m
correspondingly. The maximum SLS deflection is equal to 13mm.
3.4.2. Longitudinal reinforcement of flat slabs
In order to calculate the longitudinal slab reinforcement, several parts of the slab are solved
and reinforced as beams of 1 meter width. This calculation is based on the ULS output Mx
and My of the model, as the slab is ULS governed (the slab has short spans and therefore
small SLS deflections which do not affect the required reinforcement quantities). This leads to
the calculation of a required reinforcement area per meter for each direction x, y at the bottom
and the top of the slab. This calculation needs to be as accurate as possible for the different
parts of the slab; however the reinforcement must have a certain degree of homogeneity in
order to be practical and easy to install on site.
For this purpose, the first floor slab is divided in several areas and each area is conservatively
solved by using the maximum moment that occurs in it (even if the moment is local and does
not characterize the whole area). The calculations are performed quickly by using the
software TEDDS developed by CSC. The parts of the slab are solved as beams of 1 meter
width. This software calculates the required reinforcement of a beam according to Eurocode 2
with ULS and SLS checks. As the volume of these software calculations is very high and the
method of calculation is the classic method for dimensioning a Reinforced Concrete beam, we
will present a sample of the Tedds software calculations in Appendix D. The final
longitudinal reinforcement mark-up of the first floor slab is shown below:
Figure 41, Longitudinal reinforcement of first floor slab
The symbol H shows the diameter of the steel bar. Also, the symbol @ defines the spacing
between adjacent bars. Finally, the symbols B and T define if the reinforcement is situated at
the bottom or the top of the slab correspondingly.
The Tedds software sample calculation presented in Appendix D, calculates the required
longitudinal reinforcement in the area of the slab shown in the plan below ( reinforcement in
circle):
Figure 42, Longitudinal reinforcement of first floor slab, Sample Tedds software calculation
according to Eurocode 2 for the area in circle
From the output of the Scia model in figure 38 we can see that the maximum moment in this
area of the slab (direction y) is Mmax= +90 kN*m/m. Also, the local slab thickness is
h=225mm. The calculation is done according to Eurocode 2. Seven bars of 16mm diameter
have been calculated as the required reinforcement of an equivalent beam of 1 meter width in
Tedds software presented in Appendix D. This corresponds to a spacing of 150mm between
the H16 bars in this part of the slab. The required longitudinal reinforcement is calculated
with the exact same procedure for all the other sections of the slab.
The same applies to the second and third floor slabs the output of which can be analytically
seen in Appendix C.
The final longitudinal reinforcement mark-ups of the second and the third floor slabs are:
Figure 43, Longitudinal reinforcement of second floor slab
Figure 44, Longitudinal reinforcement of third floor slab

3.4.3. Overall reinforcement quantities
This paragraph presents the overall reinforcement quantities of the slabs expressed in kg/m3.
For this purpose, we have set up an excel spreadsheet that quickly and automatically
calculates the total mass of the steel reinforcement of the slabs depending on the diameter of
the steel bars and their spacing. This value is then divided by the volume of concrete of the
slab.
Figure 45, Illustration of the excel spreadsheet for the calculation of reinforcement quantities
The reinforcement quantities of the slabs of the building are summarized in the table below:

Element Reinforcement quantity Concrete Grade
Stage F Analytical Estimate

Rebar (t) Concrete Volume (m3) Reinforcement (kg/m3)
First Floor Slab 24.41 145 170 kg/m3 C40/50
Second Floor Slab 19.60 122 160 kg/m3 C40/50
Third Floor Slab 15.50 122 130 kg/m3 C40/50
Table 1, Reinforcement quantities of slabs of Saint Cross College
In addition, these are some typical reinforcement quantities found in different structural
elements (Source: Structural engineer’s pocketbook, 2nd ed., 2004.):
Figure 46, Typical reinforcement quantities

We observe that in Saint Cross College’s slabs the reinforcement quantities are generally
higher than typically expected in transfer slabs (150 kg/m3). This can be explained by the fact
that Saint Cross College’s slabs are also flat and thin (225mm-350mm), which reduces the
volume of concrete and increases the reinforcement quantity ratio.
3.4.4. Punching shear calculations
In figure 40 we can see four columns that are supported by the first floor slab and do not
continue until the ground. They are named C3-01, C3-02, C3-03 and C3-04. Near these
columns the column/slab interfaces areas are subject to high stresses, which can result in a
punching shear failure. In these areas the punching shear capacity of the first floor slab must
be assessed. The punching shear capacity is analytically calculated in chapters 4 and 5. In
addition, the basement of the building is shown in figure 53. In the basement, there are 16
piles and 8 columns that are directly supporting or supported by the basement slab. For this
reason, the punching shear capacity of the basement slab needs to be checked.
3.4.5. Beam subjected to torsion
In addition to the reinforcement of the flat slabs, the design of a beam subjected to torsion at
the ground floor level was critical for the design of the building. The position of the beam can
be seen in figure. The reinforcement quantities are expected to be high and should be as
optimal as possible. This design is made according to Eurocode 2 BS EN 1992-1-1:2004
paragraph 6.3. The torsional design is out the boundaries of this thesis; however the analytical
hand and software calculations, as well as the final results can be seen in Appendix A.

Figure 47, Location of ground beam GL8 subjected to torsion
3.5. Summary
In this chapter, the project Saint Cross College in Oxford was presented. The finite element
model of the project was created in the software Scia Engineer, which was analytically
shown. The output of this model was used for calculating the longitudinal reinforcement of
the flat slabs, which was found to be rather high (up to 170 kg/m3). The analytical mark-ups
of these longitudinal reinforcements were presented. Furthermore, the need for 28 punching
shear verifications (4 in the first floor and 24 in the basement) was expressed. These
calculations are presented in chapters 4 and 5.

4. Punching shear resistance of flat slabs with conventional

shear reinforcement
4.1. Introduction
In this chapter, the punching shear capacity of the first floor slab is assessed. In addition to
being a flat slab, the first floor slab is also a transfer slab, as the columns and the shear walls
above and below the slab are not aligned for architectural reasons. The result of this
asymmetrical arrangement was the high ratio of longitudinal reinforcement. Furthermore, the
slab’s punching shear capacity needs to be checked at the intersections with columns C3-01,
C3-02, C3-03 and C3-04. These interface areas are subject to high stresses, as the dimensions
of the columns are only 200mm*600mm. The axial forces of the columns that result in a
punching stress (at the Ultimate Limit State) are:
 Column C3-01 : N1 = 880kN

 Column C3-02 : N2 = 785kN
 Column C3-03 : N3 = 240kN
 Column C3-04 : N4 = 275kN
These axial forces are illustrated in the output of Scia model illustrated below:

Figure 48, Scia output, ULS Axial forces of columns C3-01,02,03,04
We start by calculating the punching shear resistance of Column C3-01, which is the most
stressed. The punching shear capacity must be superior to VEd = 880kN. Two conventional
arrangements of punching shear reinforcements are studied. These are the orthogonal and
radial arrangements proposed by Eurocode 2 in paragraph 6.4.5. The two solutions are then
compared in terms of structural effectiveness, practicality and economy. These calculations
are based on Eurocode 2 BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, paragraph 6.4.3.

4.2. Solution of slab/column C3-01 interface
The slab has a depth of h = 350mm and an average effective depth of deff = 291mm. The
quality of concrete is C40/50. We thus calculate the distance 2d of the basic control perimeter
from the column:
𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑓 291
2𝑑 = = = 580𝑚𝑚
𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜃 𝑡𝑎𝑛26,6
The length of the basic control perimeter is equal to:

𝑢1 = 2 ∗ 600 + 2 ∗ 200 + 2𝜋 ∗ 2𝑑 = 5242𝑚𝑚
This perimeter is illustrated in figure 50.
Figure 49, Distance of the basic control perimeter
4.2.1. Punching shear resistance without shear reinforcement
As presented in chapter 2, the design punching shear resistance [in MPa] of a slab at the basic control
perimeter is equal to:
1 3
𝑣𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = 𝐶𝑅𝑑,𝑐 ∗ 𝑘 ∗ (100 ∗ 𝜌𝑙 ∗ 𝑓𝑐𝑘 )3 ≥ 𝑣𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0,035 ∗ 𝑘 2 ∗ 𝑓𝑐𝑘 1/2

, where
0.18
𝐶𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = = 0,12
𝛾𝑐
200
𝑘 =1+ √ = 1,83 < 2
𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑓
𝑓𝑐𝑘 = 40 𝑀𝑃𝑎
and ρl relates to the bonded tension steel in y- and z- directions respectively. We

conservatively choose to neglect the presence of tension steel, as requested by the scientific
director. In this way the punching shear capacity of the column/slab interface will not be
affected even in the case of a modification in the longitudinal reinforcement.
We can now calculate the design punching shear resistance of the slab at the basic control
perimeter:
3 1 3⁄ 1⁄
𝑣𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = 𝑣𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0,035 ∗ 𝑘 2 ∗ 𝑓𝑐𝑘 2 = 0,035 ∗ 1,83 2 ∗ 40 2 = 0,55 𝑀𝑃𝑎
For an internal column the eccentricity of the support reaction (differentiation in pure shear
stresses due to presence of moments) is taken into account with the coefficient β = 1,15 of
Eurocode 2. This is a safety factor that takes into account the negative effects of moment
transmission from the slab to the column, as shown in Chapter 2.
The maximum punching shear capacity of the concrete slab [VRd,c in MN] without shear
reinforcement can be now calculated. The design punching shear resistance [vRd,c in MPa] is
multiplied by the effective area of the basic control perimeter. This value is then divided by
the safety factor for eccentricity β = 1,15 :
𝑉𝑚𝑖𝑛 ∗ 𝑢1 ∗𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑓 0.55𝛭𝑃𝑎∗5242𝑚𝑚∗291𝑚𝑚

𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 = = = 0,728 𝑀𝑁
𝛽 1.15
Therefore, further punching shear reinforcement is required, as:

VRd,c = 0,728 MN < VEd = 0,880 MN
Firstly, we verify that the slab can withstand the stresses due to punching shear adjacent to the
column. If this criterion is not satisfied, the slab’s or the column’s dimensions need to change
in any case. The shear stress vEd,0 at the column periphery is:
𝛽∗𝑉𝐸𝑑 1.15∗0.880𝑀𝑁
𝑣𝐸𝑑,0 = = = 2,17 MPa
𝑢𝑜 ∗𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑓 1.6𝑚∗0,291𝑚
,where uo is the column periphery.
Also, according to Eurocode 2 the maximum punching shear resistance at the column
periphery is equal to:
𝑓𝑐𝑘 𝑓𝑐𝑘
𝑣𝑅𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0,5 ∗ 𝑣 ∗ 𝑓𝑐𝑑 = 0,5 ∗ [ 0,6 ∗ (1 − )] ∗ = 6,72 𝑀𝑃𝑎
250 𝛾𝑐
We verify that 𝑣𝐸𝑑,0 < 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 . We can now proceed to the calculation of the required
punching shear reinforcement.
4.2.2. Punching shear resistance with shear reinforcement
In this section we will calculate the required punching shear reinforcement. Two verifications
must be made. Firstly, the slab with the shear reinforcement must be able to resist the
punching shear stresses at the basic control perimeter. In addition, the punching shear
resistance must be also verified in the outer control perimeter, where shear reinforcement is
no longer provided. Two different solutions are proposed and compared. These are the
orthogonal arrangement and the radial arrangement.

4.2.2.1. Orthogonal arrangement
The outer control perimeter in which reinforcement is no longer required is equal to the length
along which the stress does not exceed VRd,c :
𝛽 ∗ 𝑉𝐸𝑑 1,15 ∗ 0,880𝑀𝑁

𝑢𝑜𝑢𝑡,𝑒𝑓,𝑟𝑒𝑞 = = = 6323𝑚𝑚
𝑣𝑅𝑑,𝑐 ∗ 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑓 0,55 𝑀𝑃𝑎 ∗ 0,291𝑚
The required amount of punching shear reinforcement will be now calculated for column C3-
01. The total punching shear capacity (concrete and shear studs) must be superior to VEd =
880kN.
As stated in Eurocode 2 the first shear reinforcement perimeter should be placed at a distance
not greater than 0,5d =145mm from the column periphery. Also, the distance between two
shear reinforcement perimeters should not exceed 0,75d = 217,5mm. The required punching
shear reinforcement (Asw/sr) is calculated by the expression:
𝑑 1
𝑣𝑅𝑑,𝑐𝑠 = 0,75 ∗ 𝑣𝑅𝑑,𝑐 + 1,5 ∗ ∗ 𝐴𝑠𝑤 ∗ 𝑓𝑦𝑤𝑑,𝑒𝑓 ∗ ∗ 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑎
𝑠𝑟 𝑢1 ∗ 𝑑
The variables of this expression were presented analytically in paragraph 2.3. The variable
vRd,cs is the stress applied along the first control control perimeter and is equal to :
𝑉𝐸𝑑 ∗𝛽
𝑣𝑅𝑑,𝑐𝑠 = = 0,663𝑀𝑃𝑎
𝑢1 ∗𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑓
We can now calculate the required reinforcement which is equal to :

𝐴𝑠𝑤 𝑚𝑚2
( )𝑟𝑒𝑞 = 2,71
𝑠𝑟 𝑚𝑚
We choose to reinforce the slab by 12 link spurs of 3D8 @ 215mm. Each spur contains 3
shear studs of diameter 8mm placed at a distance 215mm from each other. The total number
of shear studs needed is 36. The provided amount of shear reinforcement is:
𝐴𝑠𝑤 12 ∗ 50𝑚𝑚2 𝑚𝑚2 𝐴𝑠𝑤 𝑚𝑚2

( ) = = 2,79 > ( ) = 2,71
𝑠𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣 215𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚 𝑠𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑞 𝑚𝑚
Finally, the outer effective perimeter with this arrangement is equal to:
𝑢𝑜𝑢𝑡,𝑒𝑓 = 2 ∗ (200 + 2 ∗ 55) + 2 ∗ (600 + 2 ∗ 55) + 2 ∗ 𝜋 ∗ 1,5 ∗ 𝑑 + 8 ∗ 𝑑 = 7092𝑚𝑚
We thus obtain: 𝑢𝑜𝑢𝑡,𝑒𝑓 = 7092𝑚𝑚 > 𝑢𝑜𝑢𝑡,𝑒𝑓,𝑟𝑒𝑞 = 6323𝑚𝑚.
This means that the outer perimeter is capable of resisting the punching shear force V=880kN.
We conclude that the punching shear reinforcement is sufficient and optimal. The orthogonal
reinforcement layout is illustrated in the figure below. It should be noted that only the solid
part of the outer line counts as effective outermost perimeter according to Eurocode 2.

Figure 50, Orthogonal reinforcement layout for C3-01
4.2.2.2.Radial arrangement
On the other hand the same amount of shear studs can be disposed radially according to
the figure below :

Figure 51, Radial reinforcement layout for C3-01
This layout results in a bigger effective outermost perimeter (8093mm) in comparison to the
orthogonal layout (7092mm). This is explained by the fact that in this case the whole
perimeter is considered to be effective, which was not the case for the orthogonal layout. This
leads to the conclusion that for the same amount of shear reinforcement the radial layout is
structurally more efficient for an internal column. In fact, our study shows that for each
geometry (slab dimensions, column dimensions etc.) and material quality (concrete quality
etc.) there is a critical punching shear load VEd,crit beyond which the radial layout can no
longer be used. This is explained by the fact that beyond this load VEd,crit the effective part of
the outermost perimeter remains constant even if extra reinforcement peripheries are added
(Eurocode 2, BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 paragraph 6.4.5.). Generally, if more than 3 perimeters of
shear reinforcement are required then the orthogonal arrangement is normally unsuitable
(Shearail Manual , Frank , October 2010).

However, when the difference between the two layouts is not very big and the provided
amount of shear reinforcement occurs to be the same, the orthogonal layout is an interesting
solution as it is more practical and easy to install. The figure below compares the effective
outermost perimeters of the two arrangements for different loadings. For each loading the
exact same amount of shear reinforcement is used for both layouts.
Figure 52, Effective outermost perimeters of the orthogonal and radial arrangement
When the first control perimeter (black line) is smaller than Uout,ef,req (red line), then the area
(length * depth of the slab) of the first control perimeter is sufficient to resist the punching
shear strees and no additional shear reinforcement is required. When the load becomes equal
to V=728kN, then additional punching shear reinforcement is required. The effective
outermost perimeter of the radial arrangement (green line) is always bigger than the one
provided by the orthogonal arrangement (blue line) for the exact same amount of shear
reinforcement. This means that the radial arrangement is structurally more efficient.
In addition, the effective outermost perimeter of the radial arrangement remains constant
regardless of the number of reinforcement peripheries, as explained above. For this example,
the critical punching shear load VEd,crit beyond which the radial layout can no longer be used is
equal to VEd,crit = 987 kN . Finally, according to Eurocode 2 the column fails adjacent to the
column periphery at a load of 2720kN, which is the maximum load that the intersection can
be designed to resist.
We conclude that:
 For loads less than 728 kN no punching shear reinforcement is required

 For loads between 728kN and 987kN it is preferable to use the orthogonal
layout due to its practicality on site
 For loads between 987kN and 2720kN only the radial layout can be used
 The radial layout is structurally more efficient and thus more economical that
the orthogonal
 The orthogonal layout is more practical and easy to install than the radial
layout
4.3. Solution of other column/slab interfaces in the first floor slab
The verification of the punching shear resistance of columns C3-02, 03, 04 is performed with
the same procedure as for column C3-01 according to Eurocode 2. For faster calculation, an
excel spreadsheet for punching shear verifications developed by The Concrete Centre is being
used. It is found that columns C3-03 and C3-04 do not need additional punching shear
reinforcement. The calculations in the excel spreadsheets can be seen in Appendix E.

4.4. Basement Slab
As mentioned in chapter 3 paragraph 3.4.4. an additional punching shear verification must be

performed for the 16 piles and 8 columns that support/are supported by the basement slab.
The output of Scia engineer presented in figures 54 and 55 shows the axial forces of the
columns and the piles that may result in a punching shear failure in the basement slab. The 16
punching shear verifications for the piles are performed according to Eurocode 2 using the
software Shearail developed by FRANK. The method is exactly the same with the one shown
analytically for the column C3-01 of the first floor slab in paragraph 4.2. The software
Shearail enables us to perform these calculations very quickly. In addition, the 8 punching
shear verifications for the columns are performed using the excel spreadsheet developed by
The Concrete Centre as mentioned in paragraph 4.3. The basement slab plan is presented
below. Each pile and column is named with a reference number that is used in the calculations
for the distinction of the elements.
Figure 53, Basement plan and pile/column reference numbers

The columns/piles are divided into three categories according to their location in the slab:
 Internal columns/piles (columns 1,2,3,4,5 and piles 7,8,9)
 Edge columns/piles ( columns 6,7,8 and piles 3,4,6,12,13,14,15)
 Corner columns/piles ( piles 1,2,5,10,11,16)
Each category is solved according to Eurocode 2 instructions.
Figure 54, Scia engineer output, ULS axial forces of piles at the basement slab
Figure 55, Scia engineer output, ULS axial forces of columns at the basement slab
The calculations for the 16 piles and the 8 columns are analytically shown in Appendix F. The
thickness of the basement is slab is h = 450mm and the concrete quality is C40/50. The
considered longitudinal reinforcement of the basement slab and the dimensions of each
pile/column are also analytically shown in the Appendix F.
We calculate that five column/slab and thirteen pile/slab interfaces need additional punching
shear reinforcement. This is explained by the fact that the basement slab is relatively thin
(450mm) and the axial forces of the piles and columns are relatively high. Another good
solution would be to increase the overall thickness of the slab to 500-550mm and/or use a
concrete of better quality.

4.5. Summary
In this chapter, the analytical conventional method according to Eurocode 2 for calculating
the punching shear capacity of a slab/column interface was demonstrated. The formulas were
applied to a specific slab/column interface in the first floor slab of Saint Cross College in
Oxford. Two possible arrangements were examined: the orthogonal and the radial
arrangements. The latter was found to be structurally more efficient. Furthermore, twenty
eight calculations were performed for the verification of the adequate punching shear
resistance of twelve slab/column and sixteen slab/pile interfaces.

5. Punching shear resistance of flat slabs with Fiber-

Reinforced Polymers (FRP)
5.1. Introduction
In this chapter, an alternative punching shear strengthening method using FRP sheets is
proposed for column C3-01. The formulas mentioned in chapter 2 are being used.
5.2. Case of solid carbon sheet applied to the whole critical perimeter
In chapter 5 it was calculated that the punching shear resistance of concrete is VRd,c=
0,728MN. The total resistance must be superior to 0,880 MN. This means that the FRP sheet
must provide a resistance of 0,880 - 0,728 = 0,152MN. For this study, carbon sheets will be
used as reinforcement. There are many types of carbon sheets of various properties with a
longitudinal tensile strength ranging from 1000MPa to 3000 MPa, as shown in table 1.
Carbon fibres exhibit high strength and stiffness. Their strength and tensile modulus are stable
as temperature rises and they are also highly resistant to aggressive environmental factors (fib,
FRP reinforcement in RC structures, September 2007). The most important disadvantage of
carbon fibres is their high cost. For this particular study, we choose to use carbon sheets of
low tensile strength (1050MPa longitudinal tensile strength and 49MPa transverse tensile
strength, Material strength source: L. MICHEL, E. FERRIER, D.BIGAUD, A. AGBOSSOU,
2007), in order to minimise the cost. Besides, this column/slab intersection needs only a
strengthening of 0,152MN.
The thickness of the sheet is 0,762mm, which is the smallest one found in the market. The
formula presented in chapter 2 is being used for the calculation of the sheets’ strength. The
sheet is applied to the whole surface that needs strengthening (Figure 24 , Arrangement (a) ).
Furthermore, the resistance of the sheet is not isotropic. It depends by the orientation of the
fibres and the forces. We calculate:

𝜓 𝑢1,𝑓 ∗ 𝑡𝑓 ∗ 𝑛𝑝 𝜎𝑓,90 𝜎𝑓,0
𝑣𝑅𝑑,𝑓 = ∗ ∗( + )
𝜒 𝑢1 ∗ 𝛾𝑓 2 ∗ 𝑐1 2 ∗ 𝑐2
2.5 5,242𝑚∗0,000762𝑚∗1 1050𝑀𝑃𝑎 49𝑀𝑝𝑎
 𝑣𝑅𝑑,𝑓 = ∗ ∗( + 2∗0.2𝑚) = 1,65 𝑀𝑃𝑎
1 5,242𝑚∗1,15 2∗0,6𝑚
𝑣𝑅𝑑,𝑓 ∗𝑢1 ∗ 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑓 1,65𝑀𝑃𝑎∗5,242𝑚∗0,291𝑚
 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑓 = =
𝛽 1,15
 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑓 = 2,18𝑀𝑁
This is largely superior to the resistance needed and the resistance criterion is satisfied.
Furthermore, the sheet must be anchored to a length of 0,20m outside the first control
perimeter in order to have an outer control perimeter bigger than 6,323m as presented in
chapter 4 (refer to figure 26). This is the outer perimeter where the concrete must be able to
resist the punching shear stress without the additional benefit from the FRP sheets. The area
of the sheet’s surface can be now easily calculated. The area is equal to A = 3,80m2.
5.2. Case of carbon crossed strips
In paragraph 6.2., we can observe that the punching shear resistance provided is largely
superior to the one required. The use of crossed strips (figure 24 , arrangement (b) ) instead of
a solid rectangular sheet of carbon fibres has the advantage of optimizing the quantity of the
material used and consequently the total cost. In addition, the orientation of the carbon fibres
is always parallel to the length of the strip. This means that the characteristic resistance of a
strip is always equal to the longitudinal tensile strength of the carbon fibre polymers
(1050MPa for this case). This applies to all strips (oriented at 0 or 90 degrees), as the carbon
fibres are always oriented towards the same direction (0 or 90 degrees correspondingly).
In this case, the transverse tensile strength, which is very low (49MPa for this case) is
irrelevant to the problem. This is another advantage of this method.
The formula presented in chapter 2 is being used for the calculation of the total punching
shear resistance of the strips. We choose to dispose 5 carbon strips in each direction. Each
strip has a width of 5cm and a thickness of 0.763mm. The total resistance of the strip can be
now calculated:

𝑣𝑅𝑑,𝑓 = 𝑣𝑅𝑑,𝑓𝑦 + 𝑣𝑅𝑑,𝑓𝑧 =
𝜓 𝑢1,𝑓𝑦 ∗ 𝑤𝑓𝑦 ∗ 𝑡𝑓𝑦 ∗ 𝑛𝑝𝑦 𝜓 𝑢1,𝑓𝑧 ∗ 𝑤𝑓𝑧 ∗ 𝑡𝑓𝑧 ∗ 𝑛𝑝𝑧

= ∗ 2 ∗ 𝑓𝑓𝑑 + ∗ ∗ 𝑓𝑓𝑑
𝜒 𝑢1 ∗ 𝛾𝑓 ∗ 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑓 𝜒 𝑢12 ∗ 𝛾𝑓 ∗ 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑓
2.5 0,25𝑚 ∗ 1𝑚 ∗ 0,000762𝑚

=2∗[ ∗ ] ∗ 1050 𝑀𝑃𝑎 = 0,115𝑀𝑃𝑎
1 (5,242𝑚) 2 ∗ 1,15 ∗ 0,291𝑚
and thus :
𝑣𝑅𝑑,𝑓 ∗ 𝑢1 ∗ 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑓 0,115𝑀𝑃𝑎 ∗ 5,242𝑚 ∗ 0,291𝑚

𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑓 = = = 0,153 𝑀𝑁
𝛽 1,15
,where the variables are the same as in 5.2. except for:

𝑓𝑓𝑑 = 1050𝑀𝑝𝑎
and 𝑢1,𝑓𝑦 = 𝑢1,𝑓𝑧 = 5 ∗ 4 ∗ 0.05 = 1𝑚
In this way the total punching shear resistance of the slab is calculated to be
𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐𝑓 = 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑐 + 𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑓 = 0,728MN + 0, 153 MN = 0,881 MN > VEd = 0,880MN
This solution is adequate and economically optimal.
We calculate the total area of FRP carbon sheet used as carbon strips. The required length of
anchorage lanc = 0,20m calculated in paragraph 5.2. is equally taken into account :
𝐴 = 5 ∗ 0,05𝑚 ∗ (𝑐1 + 2 ∗ 2𝑑 + 2 ∗ 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑐) + 5 ∗ 0,05 ∗ (𝑐2 + 2 ∗ 2𝑑 + 2 ∗ 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑐) = 1𝑚2
, where:
c1 and c2 are the column dimensions equal to 0,6m and 0,2m correspondingly

d is the effective depth of the slab equal to 0,291m
lanc is the required length of anchorage equal to 0,2m
In the case of strips we use 74% less carbon sheet (1m2 instead of 3,80m2) than in the case of
a solid carbon sheet. This solution is more optimal in terms of economy.
Possible arrangements of FRP solid sheets (a) and crossed FRP strips (b) as presented
in chapter 2, figure 24

5.3. Comparison of the punching shear strengthening methods
In this paragraph, we will compare the conventional and the innovative punching shear
strengthening methods presented in chapters 4 and 5.
A) Comparison in terms of economy
We assume the prices below for the steel shear studs and carbon FRP sheets. These prices are
indicative as they can change at any minute depending on the trends of the market and the
supplier :
 1,2£/kg = 1,72 euros / kg for the steel shear studs (Source: Pell Frischmann)
 6 euros / m2 for the FRP carbon sheets (Source: http://www.alibaba.com/product-

detail/Carbon-fiber-reinforced-polymer_1749666274.html)
 1,8 euros / kg for the epoxy resin used to bond the FRP sheets to the RC slab (Source :
http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Price-liquid-epoxy-
resin_60213594608.html?spm=a2700.7724857.35.1.x2g4Is)
In chapter 4 we added 36 shear studs of diameter 8mm which weight 0,395kg/m. For the
effective depth of the slab (d=0,291m) we calculate the total mass of steel needed:
0,395𝑘𝑔
𝑊 = 36 ∗ 0,291𝑚 ∗ = 4,138𝑘𝑔
𝑚
This mass corresponds to a price of 4,138kg*1,72euros/kg = 7,11 euros.
As far as the FRP carbon sheets are concerned, in chapter 4 we calculated a required area of
A=3,80m2 that needs to be applied in the case of a solid sheet. This corresponds to a price of
3,80m2 * 6euros/m2 = 22,8 euros. This solution was optimized by using carbon fiber strips.
The new required area is equal to 1m2 which corresponds to a price of 1m2*6euros/m2 = 6
euros. Assuming that the density of the epoxy resin is equal to 1,1g/cm3 and its thickness is
1mm (source: http://www.netcomposites.com/calculators/resin-formulae), the epoxy resin

will cost C = 1m2 * 1mm * 1,1 g/cm3 * 1,8 euros/kg = 2 euros. The final price of the
optimised FRP strips, including the use of the epoxy resin, is 6 + 2 = 8 euros.
We conclude that the conventional method of using steel as a method of reinforcement is

more economical in the short term. However, if we take into account the fact that the FRP
sheets are highly anti-corrosive, the carbon fiber polymers can be considered to be more
economical in the long term. Besides, the use of FRP has emerged in the past decade as the
most promising new technology in construction to overcome the problem of corrosion. In
addition, the price of 8 euros is not much superior to the steel solution which costs 7,11 euros.
Thus, the use of FRP sheets is definitely the recommended solution if we take into account
the fact that it is the most durable one and can also be used to quickly repair and reinforce
existing structures. Besides, in this case the labour costs for providing conventional steel
reinforcement would be extremely high.
B) Practicality and use
The use of FRP sheets is definitely more practical, as it is a very quick method for
strengthening different structural elements. The sheets are glued-bonded externally to the
structural element with the use of an epoxy matrix. This technique also offers the unique
possibility of strengthening easily existing structures that need additional reinforcement. This
would be extremely difficult with the use of the conventional methods. Furthermore, the rapid
application/bonding of FRP sheets to the structural element reduces the hours of labour and
consequently the labour cost. This is another advantage of the method which indirectly affects
the overall economy.
5.4. Summary
In this chapter, the innovative solution of using FRP sheets to prevent a punching shear failure
was demonstrated. The theoretical formulas were applied to a specific column/slab interface
in the first floor slab of Saint Cross College. The innovative solution was economically
optimised by using FRP strips instead of a whole solid sheet. The solution was then compared
to the conservative solution of steel reinforcement. It is suggested that the FRP strengthening
method is more practical and economical in the long term, however the decision is subjective
and relies on the priorities of the client.
Conclusion
This dissertation concerned the detailed design of flat slabs of the building «Saint Cross
College» in Oxford, the structural study of which is being conducted by Pell Frischmann. The
thesis also includes research on the punching shear capacity of slabs which was presented in
chapters 2, 4 and 5. This paragraph summarises the results of our study and presents the main
conclusions:
 Generally, a flat slab is thicker than an equivalent slab supported by beams. However, the
thickness of the flat slab is smaller than the overall thickness of the equivalent regular slab
plus the height of its beams (refer to chapter 1). This leads to the optimisation of the
interior space of the building which makes flat slabs a very common and desirable
solution.
 In our building, the vertical misalignment of the columns, walls and shear walls between
floors led to the additional loading of many slabs, as they had to transfer the forces of the
columns above the slab to the columns below. In addition, the slabs of the building are flat
and directly supported by columns without the use of any beam. Consequently, the
required longitudinal reinforcement of most of the slabs was very high, as presented in
chapter 3. Also, the misalignment of the columns created the need for many punching
shear verifications and additional punching shear reinforcement. This led to a required
reinforcement ratio of 170kg of steel per cubic meter of concrete. We conclude that it is
preferable to avoid designing a slab that acts at the same time as a flat and transfer slab.
The good communication between architects and civil engineers is a prerequisite for
achieving this task.
 The methods of providing additional punching shear reinforcement to a flat slab include
(as presented in chapter 2) the use of different types of steel reinforcement, the use of FRP
sheets, the use of concrete of better quality, changing the dimensions of the column or the
slab, the use of local column heads and some prestressing techniques. As long as the
section fails at the basic control perimeter, the use of steel or FRP sheets is an acceptable
solution for providing additional reinforcement. However, when the section starts to fail at

the column periphery as well (see paragraph 2.3.2.) the only solution is to change the
dimensions of the column/slab intersection or increase the quality of concrete.
 According to our research the radial layout of punching shear reinforcement is structurally
more efficient than the orthogonal layout for internal columns (please refer to chapter 4).
However, the orthogonal layout is more practical and easy to install on site. For this
reason, we concluded that when the provided reinforcement occurs to be the same for both
layouts the orthogonal layout is preferable. This applies to small punching shear loads.
For bigger loads, we concluded that the effective outer perimeter provided by the
orthogonal layout is not enough to resist the punching shear stresses. The radial layout
must be used in this case.
 An innovative method to increase the punching shear resistance of a RC slab is to bond

externally FRP sheets. Strengthening slabs with FRP sheets is simple, does not require
excessive labour, does not affect the architectural character of the building and offers the
unique possibility of repairing existing structures very quickly. In addition, the use of FRP
sheets is considered to be a very promising technology for overcoming the problem of
corrosion.
 In this thesis, the FRP method was compared to the conventional method of steel
reinforcement (please refer to chapter 5). The results showed that the two methods are
comparable in terms of economy. A further economic optimisation of the FRP method
was achieved by using crossed FRP strips instead of solid FRP sheets. This strategy
reduced the total area of the externally bonded FRP sheets which consequently led to a
cost reduction. Furthermore, if we take into account the fact that the FRP sheets are highly
anti-corrosive, the FRP solution can be considered to be more economical in the long
term.

References

[1] ACI ; Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete and Commentary (ACI 319-
95/ACI 318R-95), American Concrete Institute Committee 318, Detroit, 1995, 353 pp.
[2] ACI ; Provisional Design Recommendations for Concrete Reinforced with FRP Bars (ACI
440R-98), American Concrete Institute Committee 440, Farmington Hills, Michigan, Draft 2,
September, 1998, section 6.5.
[3] ALBRECHT U. ; Design of flat slabs for punching – European and North American
practices. Cement Concrete Compos 2002;24:531-8.
[4] ALKARANI, RAVINDRA. R ; Evaluation of punching shear in flat slabs, International

Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, IC-RICE Conference Issue ; 2013
[5] AS 3600 ; Australian Standard Concrete Structures, Standards Australia, Homebush, NSW
[6] ASSOCIATION FRANCAISE DE GENIE CIVIL ; Réparation et renforcement des

structures en béton armé au moyen des matériaux composites ; 2010
[7] BIRKLE G. , DILGER W. ; Influence of slab thickness on punching shear strength,

ACI Structural Journal, vol.105, no.2, March, pp.180-188
[8] BS 8110 ; Code of Practice for Design and Construction, British Standards Institution,
Part 1, London, 1985,124pp.
[9] EL. GHANDOUR, A.W., PILAKOUTAS, K., WALDRON,P. ; Punching shear

behaviour of fiber reinforced polymers reinforced concrete flat slabs: experimental study,
Journal of Composites for Construction, 7 (3), pp. 258-265; 2003
[10] EUROCODE 2 ; pr EN 1992-1-1 ; Design of concrete structures, part 1-1 : General

rules and rules for buildings; 2008

[11] fib ; Punching of Structural Concrete Slabs, International Federation For Structural
Concrete, Lausanne
[12] MENETREY P. ; Synthesis of punching failure in reinforced concrete. Cem Concr

Comp 2002;24:497-507
[13] MICHEL L., FERRIER E., BIGAUD D., AGBOSSOU A. ; Criteria for Punching
Failure Mode in RC Slabs Reinforced by Externally Bonded CFRP. Journal of Composite
Structures, Elsevier ed., Volume 81, Issue 3, December 2007, Pages 438-449.
[14] MOSALLAM AS, MOSAL KM. ; Strengthening of two-way concrete slabs with FRP
composite laminates. Construct Build Mater 2003; 17:43-54.
[15] PILAKOUTAS, K. and LI, X., ; Alternative shear reinforcement for reinforced
concrete flat slabs, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, vol. 129, no.9, pp. 1164-1172 ;
2003
[16] POLAK, MA. , EL-SALAKAWY, E.,HAMMILL, NL. ; Shear reinforcement for

concrete flat slabs, in MA Polak(ed.), Punching Shear in Reinforced Concrete Slabs, vol. SP-
232, American Concrete Institute Farmington Hills, Michigan.
[17] ROCHDI E.H., BIGAUD D., FERRIER E., HAMELIN P.; Ultimate behaviour of
CFRP strengthened RC flat slabs under a centrally applied load. Composite Structures.
72(2006)69-78.
[18] THEODORAKOPOULOS DD ; Swamy RN. Ultimated punching shear analysis of

slab-column connections. Cement Concrete Compos 2002;24-509-21.
[19] VIKUNJ K. TILVA, B. A. VYAS, PARTH THAKER ; Enhancing the punching shear
resistance of flat plates using shear heads, shear studs rails and shear stirrups: a comparative
study, Volume 04, No 06 SPL, pp. 596-599, October 2011.

[20] WIGHT, JK. , MACGREGOR, JG. ; Reinforced Concrete, Pearson Prentice Hall,
New Jersey.
[21] ALIBABA PRODUCTS. [15 JUNE 2015], http://www.alibaba.com/product-

detail/Carbon-fiber-reinforced-polymer_1749666274.html

Appendices

APPENDIX A: CALCULATION OF REINFORCEMENT TO RESIST TORSION
FOR GROUND FLOOR BEAM GL8
The calculations are done according to Eurocode 2 paragraph 6.3. The longitudinal and shear
reinforcement are firstly calculated for a beam without torsion by using the software Tedds
developed by CSC. This calculation is done according to Eurocode 2 and is presented in the
end of the appendix. Then, according to Eurocode 2 paragraph 6.3. an additional longitudinal
and shear reinforcement must be calculated in order to resist the torsional effect. The
analytical hand calculations are presented in this appendix. Also, the detailed section in scale
of the beam with its reinforcement is presented.
The Scian Engineer ULS output for ground floor beam GL8 is:
Figure 56, Bending moment My in beam GL8

Figure 57, Shear force V in beam GL8
Figure 58, Torsional moment Mx in beam GL8
The detailed hand calculations are now presented.











The detailed section of the beam with its reinforcement is now presented.

The Tedds software calculations are now presented.




APPENDIX B: PLANS AND SECTIONS OF SAINT CROSS COLLEGE
Figure 59, Saint Cross College plan, Basement

Figure 60, Saint Cross College plan, Ground floor

Figure 61, Saint Cross College plan, First floor

Figure 62, Saint Cross College plan, Second floor

Figure 63, Saint Cross College plan, Third floor

Figure 64, Saint Cross College plan, Roof

Figure 65, Saint Cross College section

APPENDIX C :ULS OUTPUT OF SCIA ENGINEER
Figure 66, ULS output of Scia engineer fot the second floor slab (direction x)

Figure 67, ULS output of Scia engineer fot the second floor slab (direction y)
Figure 68, ULS output of Scia engineer fot the third floor slab (direction x)

Figure 69, ULS output of Scia engineer fot the third floor slab (direction y)

APPENDIX D: SAMPLE CALCULATION OF THE LONGITUDINAL
REINFORCEMENT OF THE FIRST FLOOR SLAB ACCORDING TO EUROCODE
2 IN TEDDS SOFTWARE
Figure 70, Tedds sample calculation page 1

Figure 71, Tedds sample calculation page 2

APPENDIX E: PUNCHING SHEAR CALCULATIONS FOR COLUMNS C3-02, C3-

03, C3-04 OF THE FIRST FLOOR SLAB
Figure 72, Punching shear verification for column C3-02



APPENDIX F: PUNCHING SHEAR VERIFICATIONS FOR COLUMN/SLAB AND
PILE/SLAB INTERFACES IN BASEMENT SLAB
The calculations for the piles performed in the software Shearail are shown below.
Pile 1


Pile 2


Piles 3,4


Pile 5


Pile 6


Pile 10


Pile 11


Pile 12


Piles 13,14


Pile 15


Pile 16


The calculations for the columns in the excel spreadsheet are shown below.
Column 1

Column 2

Column 3

Column 4

Column 5

Column 6

Column 7

Column 8

Flat Lab

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Flat Lab

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Flat Lab

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées

Projet de Fin d’Etudes

Conseiller scientifique : Eddie Jump

Directeur de projet : Gilles Forêt

Design of flat slabs of Saint Cross College in Oxford

Je remercie également M. Ashu Prabhu, M. Tom Robertshaw et Mlle Giulia Tomasello de

Aussi, je réserve un remerciement spécial à mes collègues de bureau pour la gentillesse et la

LYTOS Konstantinos – Département Génie Civil et Construction 2

LYTOS Konstantinos – Département Génie Civil et Construction 3

LYTOS Konstantinos – Département Génie Civil et Construction 4

LYTOS Konstantinos – Département Génie Civil et Construction 5

LYTOS Konstantinos – Département Génie Civil et Construction 6

LYTOS Konstantinos – Département Génie Civil et Construction 7

Figure 1, Forth Rail Bridge in Edinburgh ................................................................................ 12

LYTOS Konstantinos – Département Génie Civil et Construction 8

LYTOS Konstantinos – Département Génie Civil et Construction 9

LYTOS Konstantinos – Département Génie Civil et Construction 10

Table 1, Reinforcement quantities of slabs of Saint Cross College………………………..56

LYTOS Konstantinos – Département Génie Civil et Construction 11

Presentation of Pell Frischmann

Figure 1, Forth Rail Bridge in Edinburgh

LYTOS Konstantinos – Département Génie Civil et Construction 12

1.1. Flat slabs

Figure 2, Different types of slabs and supports

Figure 3, Flat plate concrete slab

LYTOS Konstantinos – Département Génie Civil et Construction 13

Figure 4, Optimisation of the height of the building using flat slabs

Figure 5, Punching shear failure surface

LYTOS Konstantinos – Département Génie Civil et Construction 14

Figure 6, Collapse of Sampoong Department Store due to punching shear failure

LYTOS Konstantinos – Département Génie Civil et Construction 15

LYTOS Konstantinos – Département Génie Civil et Construction 16

LYTOS Konstantinos – Département Génie Civil et Construction 17

2.2.1. Punching Shear in General

Figure 7, Example of punching shear failure

A slab of a specific thickness and quality of concrete, which is supported by a column of

LYTOS Konstantinos – Département Génie Civil et Construction 18

 Using concrete of high quality

2.2.2. Conventional types of punching shear reinforcement

 Shearheads as shown in figure 9

 Stud rails, shear studs and shear bolts as shown in figure 10

 Other new and modern shear reinforcement

LYTOS Konstantinos – Département Génie Civil et Construction 19

Figure 9, Typical shearhead reinforcement

LYTOS Konstantinos – Département Génie Civil et Construction 20

Figure 10, Headed shear studs (Source: Shearail by FRANK manual)

LYTOS Konstantinos – Département Génie Civil et Construction 21

2.3.1. Punching shear verification model

LYTOS Konstantinos – Département Génie Civil et Construction 22

LYTOS Konstantinos – Département Génie Civil et Construction 23

Figure 14, Control perimeter near opening according to Eurocode 2

2.3.2. Punching shear calculation

The checks that must be carried out are:

2. Punching shear reinforcement is not necessary if :

LYTOS Konstantinos – Département Génie Civil et Construction 24

d is the mean effective depth of the slab

ui is the length of the control perimeter being considered

LYTOS Konstantinos – Département Génie Civil et Construction 25

Figure 16, Recommended values for β according to Eurocode 2